Professor Peter Singer: Kill infants and those with disabilities

[tonymctones]

Where did I say that?  My belief that people are more important than plants has nothing to do with religion. 

How do you define a universal wrong?  Seems like a practice that every society considers wrong should qualify. 

No, I don't feel the same way regarding religious versus secular viewpoints.  They should have an equal opportunity at the ballot box.  If you disagree with a certain viewpoint, go vote.  That's what I do.     

why do you believe that humans are more important then plants?
What logical basis do you have that says humans are more important then plants?

Again just b/c everybody thinks one way doesnt make that way of thinking right. A universal wrong is something that is logically wrong in this case if killing of ppl even though innocent made logical sense to society then logically and therefore ethically it would not be considered wrong.

I should state that there is a a theory in ethics called DCT devine command/control theory as well as many others and again some that might lead to this line of thinking...you said you can agree that there isnt much of a logical jump between abortion and infantcide well if you believe that again does it suprise you that somebody who believes in abortion might hold these views? if really shouldnt.

[Deicide]

Where did I say that?  My belief that people are more important than plants has nothing to do with religion. 

How do you define a universal wrong?  Seems like a practice that every society considers wrong should qualify. 

No, I don't feel the same way regarding religious versus secular viewpoints.  They should have an equal opportunity at the ballot box.  If you disagree with a certain viewpoint, go vote.  That's what I do.     

The only problem is that there are no well represented secular view points in the political scene; you always have to vote for a religious nut or a lip service giver.

[tonymctones]

if the government said you had to have an abortion b/c ppl thought we had to many ppl in the world and there where enough secular votes to get it pasted despite your religious views you would adhere beach?

[Dos Equis]

why do you believe that humans are more important then plants?
What logical basis do you have that says humans are more important then plants?

Again just b/c everybody thinks one way doesnt make that way of thinking right. A universal wrong is something that is logically wrong in this case if killing of ppl even though innocent made logical sense to society then logically and therefore ethically it would not be considered wrong.

I should state that there is a a theory in ethics called DCT devine command/control theory as well as many others and again some that might lead to this line of thinking...you said you can agree that there isnt much of a logical jump between abortion and infantcide well if you believe that again does it suprise you that somebody who believes in abortion might hold these views? if really shouldnt.

Humans think, feel, and make the world go round.  Plants are dispensable and completely interchangeable.  I can walk outside right now and pull a plant out of the ground with little or no repercussion.  I can also replace it with another plant tomorrow.  If I were to walk outside and shoot a random person, it's possible hundreds of people could be adversely affected.  No comparison Tony.   

Typically, if all societies believe an act is wrong, then the act is logically wrong.  Do you have examples of acts considered wrong by all societies that were illogical?

There isn't a huge logical leap from abortion to infanticide, but not many people make that leap.  And I'm aware of only one person (who I learned of today) that advocates infanticide while being chair of a university ethics department.  That is what I find surprising.     

[Dos Equis]

if the government said you had to have an abortion b/c ppl thought we had to many ppl in the world and there where enough secular votes to get it pasted despite your religious views you would adhere beach?

Tony you have made two assumptions:  (1) all people who are pro life are "religious"; and (2) my "religious views" shape my views on abortion. 

That said, I don't have the plumbing to get pregnant.     Seriously, I can't really answer this one, because I don't have definitive views on the legality of abortion.  If you substitute infants in your hypothetical, then I would say "no," I wouldn't kill my child because the government told me to. 

Pretty unrealistic in any event.

And why do you keep bringing up religion?   

[Dos Equis]

The only problem is that there are no well represented secular view points in the political scene; you always have to vote for a religious nut or a lip service giver.

That's not true.  Most of the laws we pass are "secular." 

[tonymctones]

Tony you have made two assumptions:  (1) all people who are pro life are "religious"; and (2) my "religious views" shape my views on abortion. 

That said, I don't have the plumbing to get pregnant.     Seriously, I can't really answer this one, because I don't have definitive views on the legality of abortion.  If you substitute infants in your hypothetical, then I would say "no," I wouldn't kill my child because the government told me to. 

Pretty unrealistic in any event.

And why do you keep bringing up religion?   

not really unrealistic after all the same thing has happened but in the opposite direction, forcing women to keep their children and not allowing abortion. So if the majority said you must have an abortion you would tell your wife to go get one?

I didnt assume all pro life ppl are religious

[Dos Equis]

not really unrealistic after all the same thing has happened but in the opposite direction, forcing women to keep their children and not allowing abortion. So if the majority said you must have an abortion you would tell your wife to go get one?

I didnt assume all pro life ppl are religious

Then what did you mean when you said if there are "enough secular votes" to get it passed?  I interpreted that to mean only "secular" or non-religious people would pass such a law.   

I don't agree with your view that killing a baby is the same as a woman being "forced" to have a baby.

Assuming in some bizarre circumstance that Congress passed a law that required my wife to have an abortion if she got pregnant (again), the president signed such a law, and the courts did not invalidate that law as unconstitutional, no I would not tell my wife to get an abortion.     

[tonymctones]

Humans think, feel, and make the world go round.  Plants are dispensable and completely interchangeable.  I can walk outside right now and pull a plant out of the ground with little or no repercussion.  I can also replace it with another plant tomorrow.  If I were to walk outside and shoot a random person, it's possible hundreds of people could be adversely affected.  No comparison Tony.   

Typically, if all societies believe an act is wrong, then the act is logically wrong.  Do you have examples of acts considered wrong by all societies that were illogical?

There isn't a huge logical leap from abortion to infanticide, but not many people make that leap.  And I'm unaware of only one person (who I learned of today) that advocates infanticide while being chair of a university ethics department.  That is what I find surprising.     

LOL beach gonna take a lot more than those reasons to logically state that a human is more important than a plant
the world will still be here even if humans are not, humans dont make the world go round. You mention b/c we think we are more important than plants, well mentally handicapped ppl and elderly dont think with the same capacity of normal adult humans does that mean that they are less worthy of life? NO logically this doesnt make sense either. I think you overstate importance of a humans, humans are interchangeable and dispensable. If you use these things to justify that humans are more important then plants you can also use these things to justify why some humans are more important then other humans and come up with the same beliefs that the professor has.

LOL i dont think you could get all societies to agree on any one thing...this was meant as an example just b/c everyone agrees on things doesnt make them right logically.

The state of sparta practiced infantcide and everybody there thought that it was the right thing to do.

[tonymctones]

Then what did you mean when you said if there are "enough secular votes" to get it passed?  I interpreted that to mean only "secular" or non-religious people would pass such a law.   

I don't agree with your view that killing a baby is the same as a woman being "forced" to have a baby.

Assuming in some bizarre circumstance that Congress passed a law that required my wife to have an abortion if she got pregnant (again), the president signed such a law, and the courts did not invalidate that law as unconstitutional, no I would not tell my wife to get an abortion.     

was a reference to an earlier post not important...LOL you keep finding these details your missing the forest for the trees beach.

This is my point you wouldnt force your wife to get an abortion b/c it goes against your views but you would vote to make it so that a person who doesnt hold your beliefs is forced to give birth to a baby they dont want even though its against theirs?

[Dos Equis]

LOL beach gonna take a lot more than those reasons to logically state that a human is more important than a plant
the world will still be here even if humans are not, humans dont make the world go round. You mention b/c we think we are more important than plants, well mentally handicapped ppl and elderly dont think with the same capacity of normal adult humans does that mean that they are less worthy of life? NO logically this doesnt make sense either. I think you overstate importance of a humans, humans are interchangeable and dispensable. If you use these things to justify that humans are more important then plants you can also use these things to justify why some humans are more important then other humans and come up with the same beliefs that the professor has.

LOL i dont think you could get all societies to agree on any one thing...this was meant as an example just b/c everyone agrees on things doesnt make them right logically.

The state of sparta practiced infantcide and everybody there thought that it was the right thing to do.

Hey it makes sense to me.    I didn't say anything about mentally disabled people and the elderly being less worthy of life.  That's a different subject.  (I don't think the "elderly" think with any less capacity than any other normal person.  They're actually much smarter in most instances.)  

I'm overstating the importance of humans and human relationships?  Are you married?  Do you have parents?  Siblings?  Friends?  Are all of those people disposable and interchangeable?  My father was my best friend.  When he died he left a gaping hole in my life.  I couldn't imagine losing one of my children.  Dispensable?  Hardly.  If you haven't experienced those kinds of close relationships then you are cheating yourself.  

Dude infanticide practiced by Sparta just shows those people were freakin nuts.    We can find all sorts of communities and segments of the population throughout history that engaged in abnormal, unethical, and/or immoral behavior.  That doesn't change the character of that behavior at all.  

[Deicide]

Hey it makes sense to me.    I didn't say anything about mentally disabled people and the elderly being less worthy of life.  That's a different subject.  (I don't think the "elderly" think with any less capacity than any other normal person.  They're actually much smarter in most instances.)  

I'm overstating the importance of humans and human relationships?  Are you married?  Do you have parents?  Siblings?  Friends?  Are all of those people disposable and interchangeable?  My father was my best friend.  When he died he left a gaping hole in my life.  I couldn't imagine losing one of my children.  Dispensable?  Hardly.  If you haven't experienced those kinds of close relationships then you are cheating yourself.  

Dude infanticide practiced by Sparta just shows those people were freakin nuts.    We can find all sorts of communities and segments of the population throughout history that engaged in abnormal, unethical, and/or immoral behavior.  That doesn't change the character of that behavior at all.  

People's roles are interchangeable. The basic example is the romantic relationship or marriage; it goes on for a few years until the feelings die; there is a break up or divorce and eventually someone new reaprises the old roles. Children are different because they are your DNA, your investment in your future and it is a considerable amount of time to invest to get to the point where they are DNA productive as well; still one could copulate again and thus produce new DNA which would fullfill the former role of the dead DNA.

I wonder if you consider the Israelites nuts? They practiced infanticide against male babies.

[tonymctones]

Hey it makes sense to me.    I didn't say anything about mentally disabled people and the elderly being less worthy of life.  That's a different subject.  (I don't think the "elderly" think with any less capacity than any other normal person.  They're actually much smarter in most instances.)  

I'm overstating the importance of humans and human relationships?  Are you married?  Do you have parents?  Siblings?  Friends?  Are all of those people disposable and interchangeable?  My father was my best friend.  When he died he left a gaping hole in my life.  I couldn't imagine losing one of my children.  Dispensable?  Hardly.  If you haven't experienced those kinds of close relationships then you are cheating yourself.  

Dude infanticide practiced by Sparta just shows those people were freakin nuts.    We can find all sorts of communities and segments of the population throughout history that engaged in abnormal, unethical, and/or immoral behavior.  That doesn't change the character of that behavior at all.  

You dont have to you imply these things LOGICALLY when you say b/c we can think, whats the cut off of cognitive ability? It cant be just b/c we think b/c then you involve all animals which im sure you eat, which leads to the amount of cognitive ability that humans have, well some humans dont have the same amount of cognitive ability of others in many instances elderly operate at much less capacity of normal humans so where do you draw the line if you are using b/c we can think as a variable for humans being more important than plants. Thinking isnt a strictly human trait so if you cant kill a mentally handicapped human b/c he has the ability to think you logically cant kill a animal b/c it has the ability to think as well. If you want to differentiate between human and animal cognitive ability there must be a cut off line which some humans will undoubtedly fall below and some animals will surpass, so LOGICALLY you have to be ok with being able to kill the humans that fall below and not kill the animals that surpass your cut off line...You see the logical problem with using b/c we think as a definitive variable in this case, it could be used to justify infantcide b/c the child doesnt have the cognitive ability to pass the cut off line. ILLOGICAL to use b/c we think.

I have these relationships beach, no wife as of yet but hopefully down the road. But if somebody loses a spouse do they not get another one?, if they lose a friend do they not fill the void? If the human race was to be exterminated tomorrow would another species not flourish, as much as we like to think we are irreplaceable we arent.

I agree

[Deicide]

You dont have to you imply these things LOGICALLY when you say b/c we can think, whats the cut off of cognitive ability? It cant be just b/c we think b/c then you involve all animals which im sure you eat, which leads to the amount of cognitive ability that humans have, well some humans dont have the same amount of cognitive ability of others in many instances elderly operate at much less capacity of normal humans so where do you draw the line if you are using b/c we can think as a variable for humans being more important than plants. Thinking isnt a strictly human trait so if you cant kill a mentally handicapped human b/c he has the ability to think you logically cant kill a animal b/c it has the ability to think as well. If you want to differentiate between human in animal cognitive ability there must be a cut off line which some humans will undoubtedly fall below and some animals will surpass, so LOGICALLY you have to be ok with being able to kill the humans that fall below and not kill the animals that surpass your cut off line...You see the logical problem with using b/c we think as a definitive variable in this case, it could be used to justify infantcide b/c the child doesnt have the cognitive ability to pass the cut off line. ILLOGICAL to use b/c we think.

I have these relationships beach, no wife as of yet but hopefully down the road. But if somebody loses a spouse do they not get another one?, if they lose a friend do they not fill the void? If the human race was to be exterminated tomorrow would another species not flourish, as much as we like to think we are irreplaceable we arent.

I agree

There is nothing special about human beings. We have arrived here rather by a fluke of fate. The universe would not mourn our loss.

[Dos Equis]

was a reference to an earlier post not important...LOL you keep finding these details your missing the forest for the trees beach.

This is my point you wouldnt force your wife to get an abortion b/c it goes against your views but you would vote to make it so that a person who doesnt hold your beliefs is forced to give birth to a baby they dont want even though its against theirs?

What you call details are actually incorrect assumptions that form the foundation of your questions. 

And not to get all technical on you  , but I can't force my wife to get any kind of medical procedure.  It's her decision.  I would give her my input, but at the end of the day, it's her decision.

You don't know what my abortion views are, because I've never discussed them.  I'm not even sure what they are.  I believe life begins at conception.  I believe abortion kills a baby.  What should the law or politics do about that?  I really don't know.  So, to say that I would vote a certain way on your hypothetical abortion law is simply not accurate.     

[tonymctones]

What you call details are actually incorrect assumptions that form the foundation of your questions. 

And not to get all technical on you  , but I can't force my wife to get any kind of medical procedure.  It's her decision.  I would give her my input, but at the end of the day, it's her decision.

You don't know what my abortion views are, because I've never discussed them.  I'm not even sure what they are.  I believe life begins at conception.  I believe abortion kills a baby.  What should the law or politics do about that?  I really don't know.  So, to say that I would vote a certain way on your hypothetical abortion law is simply not accurate.     

Why do you believe that life begins at conception?

[w8tlftr]

Why do you believe that life begins at conception?

Frankenbabies?

[tonymctones]

Frankenbabies?

LOL what? are those the same thing as test tube babies?

[Dos Equis]

People's roles are interchangeable. The basic example is the romantic relationship or marriage; it goes on for a few years until the feelings die; there is a break up or divorce and eventually someone new reaprises the old roles. Children are different because they are your DNA, your investment in your future and it is a considerable amount of time to invest to get to the point where they are DNA productive as well; still one could copulate again and thus produce new DNA which would fullfill the former role of the dead DNA.

I wonder if you consider the Israelites nuts? They practiced infanticide against male babies.

It is true that you can form new relationships, but they often come at great cost.  I think people who have lost loved ones will tell you that it takes a long time to heal wounds.  That was part of my point.  

Children are different because you have relationships with them from birth.  They're not an investment in my future.  They have nothing to do with increasing my bottom line.  They actually cost me a great deal of money.  I invest in their future.  My close ties to them have to do with the fact that I knew them before they were born, taught them how to eat, walk, talk, etc. and have shared countless memories.  You can't simply discard those relationships.  People who think those kinds of relationships are interchangeable probably haven't experienced those relationships.    

[w8tlftr]

LOL what? are those the same thing as test tube babies?

I guess. I mean, if we're both taking about inanimate tissue that suddenly comes to life. 

POOF!!! Fear the Frankenbabies!!!

[tonymctones]

I guess. I mean, if we're both taking about inanimate tissue that suddenly comes to life. 

POOF!!! Fear the Frankenbabies!!!

LOL makes me think of frankenberry

[w8tlftr]

LOL makes me think of frankenberry

YAY BOWL OF SUGAR!

[Dos Equis]

You dont have to you imply these things LOGICALLY when you say b/c we can think, whats the cut off of cognitive ability? It cant be just b/c we think b/c then you involve all animals which im sure you eat, which leads to the amount of cognitive ability that humans have, well some humans dont have the same amount of cognitive ability of others in many instances elderly operate at much less capacity of normal humans so where do you draw the line if you are using b/c we can think as a variable for humans being more important than plants. Thinking isnt a strictly human trait so if you cant kill a mentally handicapped human b/c he has the ability to think you logically cant kill a animal b/c it has the ability to think as well. If you want to differentiate between human and animal cognitive ability there must be a cut off line which some humans will undoubtedly fall below and some animals will surpass, so LOGICALLY you have to be ok with being able to kill the humans that fall below and not kill the animals that surpass your cut off line...You see the logical problem with using b/c we think as a definitive variable in this case, it could be used to justify infantcide b/c the child doesnt have the cognitive ability to pass the cut off line. ILLOGICAL to use b/c we think.

I have these relationships beach, no wife as of yet but hopefully down the road. But if somebody loses a spouse do they not get another one?, if they lose a friend do they not fill the void? If the human race was to be exterminated tomorrow would another species not flourish, as much as we like to think we are irreplaceable we arent.

I agree

So we are talking about animals instead of plants now?  I'm a vegetarian.  lol.    But I don't have a problem with using animals as food, for science, as pets, etc.  

We don't murder mentally disabled because they have a right to life.  That's what our Constitution says.  I forget which amendment says this, but we cannot deprive them or anyone of life without due process.  That's really all the support I need regarding the disabled and infants.  

Sure you can find a new spouse, adopt new kids, make new friends.  What I'm saying is the relationships are not interchangeable like pulling a plant out of the ground and replacing it with a new one.  There is sadness, grieving, depression, etc. involved when you lose a loved one and/or friend (however you lose them).  It comes at great cost.    

[Dos Equis]

Why do you believe that life begins at conception?

Because I've read about how life begins and shared the pregnancy experience with my wife.  I've seen life develop in the womb.

It's the logical starting point for me. 

When do you believe life begins and why?   


 

[tonymctones]

So we are talking about animals instead of plants now?  I'm a vegetarian.  lol.    But I don't have a problem with using animals as food, for science, as pets, etc.  

We don't murder mentally disabled because they have a right to life.  That's what our Constitution says.  I forget which amendment says this, but we cannot deprive them or anyone of life without due process.  That's really all the support I need regarding the disabled and infants.  

You are going back in forth, you said that humans are more important than a plant and therefor its ok to step on an acorn but not kill an infant b/c we cam think. If this is the case then following your logic you must also be against killing animals b/c they can think, correct? Apparently you are ok with killing animals so that means that there is another qualyfing aspect that makes it ok to kill animals but not humans. The only thing that this could be would be the amount of cognitive ability that humans have in respect to animals correct? If you use cognitive ability what is the cut off you use to say that below this line its ok to kill and above this line its not ok to kill? Will you be ok with killing those mentally handicapped and elderly that dont pass your line?

So its right b/c the constitution says so? If the constitution said kill them you would support it? Again you need to think about the logic behind it.